At the very least it could be considered a vote for the feature.
They are extensible, sure, but not very flexible.
> This assistance can be provided either by IntelliJ IDEA itself, or based on the data from
> the built-in TypeScript compiler, or through integration with the TypeScript Language Service.
[0] https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/2016.2/typescript-suppor...
I'm not:
> US $ 129.00 /1st year
I don't say it's not worth it, but we have pretty good editors for free (sublime, vscode, atom, etc).
Sometimes I wonder if Emacs and Vi would be so appreciated if they were commercial as well, without any FOSS version available.
Main part of pycharm is free and open source: https://blog.jetbrains.com/pycharm/2013/10/pycharm-3-0-commu... .
> Sometimes I wonder if Emacs and Vi would be so appreciated if they were commercial as well, without any FOSS version available.
One reason for multitude of emacs extensions is the open source nature. Average IntelliJ user is less likely to write extension than emacs user.
For example, why must I click ok after pushing a change to a remote git server? Shouldn't it be a toast?
Strange logic: if everyone followed that train of thought, we'd all settle for whatever quality tools are available so long as the price is $0. I'd much rather pay for a valuable tool than use a subpar free tool.
Edit: To expand, sublime is still by far my favorite TEXT editor. I just don't find doing everyday text editing tasks in VSCode to be pleasant at all, its an amazing IDE though!. Atom is much better for the task but the responsiveness and large file handling capabilities of sublime makes it the clear winner. If you already paid the $70 for a licence back when atom didn't exist anyways...
Are you working on a project that makes money? Will a productivity tool increase your productivity by half a percent? Then that tool is worth hundreds of dollars. If not thousands.
Regardless of their quality, because the actual IT generation wants to earn money with tools they got for free (beer), while other professions people do pay for their tools.
You seem to feel strongly enough about this to repeat it nearly word-for-word in multiple comments. Trust me, every profession wants to pay less for its tools. And no one, in IT or out, is choosing their tools "regardless of quality".
This is why most companies selling such software tools have switched their basic versions from "trial during X days/trial license" to free (beer), while trying to seduce developers to eventually pay for the full version.
I am talking about IT being one of the few professions in 2016, with individuals that expect to earn money while using tools produced with the effort of others for free (beer), while not giving anything back (not even bug reports, unless their own customers press them against the wall).
So the question isn't about the quality, rather how many Emacs and vi users would have actually payed for them, if they were only available as commercial software?
Would those shit loads of plugins exist if people had to pay for them?
It's pretty sad that VS Code doesn't give you much that VS6 couldn't do back in the day (except slower and less stable).
Also, I think your memory is playing tricks on you. I've experienced more the my fair share of crashes in VS6.
The only thing that might "break" is if you rely on Webstorm's tools for things like test runners, compiling, minifying and bundling code, etc, instead of learning how to do it on your own. You'd then need to learn how to set it up yourself with the command line tools instead of a nice GUI.
At least use bash/batch files.
I want to be able to build my projects if I ever decide that I don't need it anymore
1. Make an ant/maven/gradle repo, and have the build command run gradle build or something.
2. Create a commandline (open source) tool called "intellibuild" or something, which reads the project files and does whatever the "build" button does.
Unfortunately, they don't do either, so if I don't have a license (or I want to give my code to others who don't use IntelliJ), my J2EE is not buildable.
That said, love Jetbrains. Have a Ultimate license for Java.
I've tried VS Code, but prefer WebStorm.
With $120+ per year subscription I am surprised people use it.
I really don't like this trend of software as subscription.
If it was $120 for buying a license I would probably consider it. But $120 for 1 year use is rather high in my book.
Also see here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12292148
Works pretty well, although I think I could increase productivity if I align the keybinding for both of them (i.e. quick open, find, etc)
[1] https://github.com/Shougo/deoplete.nvim
Tried to use/learn typescript, in the meantime I wonder if there is a document showing how to use certain "safe" javascript along with its strict mode to make javascript secure enough so that I don't need use Typescript? i.e. how about using a subset of native javascript with certain rules that can achieve what typescript provides, is this enough? is 'strict-mode' the answer?
If there is a book/blog stating "using javascript the way as your typescript" I will buy it right away. :)
As an example, to see what I mean, try to figure out how to write a properly typed Higher Order Component function. Last time I looked at it, this had no direct mention in documentation and only workarounds on StackOverflow.
export var hocFunction: (arg1: any, arg2: any) => <ComponentT>(component: ComponentT) => ComponentT
If you want to add new props as a result of the HOC then see the react-redux .d.ts for a few examples: https://github.com/DefinitelyTyped/DefinitelyTyped/blob/mast...
And I don't even have to introduce typescript to my codebase to get surprisingly good hinting and autocomplete.